The "structure" other than
scientific which
science cannot approach with
efficacy is the mind, which is immeasurable.
Language and
space never
intersect - a universal sign system of mental ideas does not have volume. If one
sign implies another sign, this is because the idea behind one sign implies the
idea behind the other sign, in the mind of the send or receiver of the sign.
The signs in themselves are distinct. The sign "mutt" may imply the sign "dog,"
but that is because the ideas behind them are related - the signs themselves are
arbitrary and independent. Similarly, the words may be old, but they may be
recombined to express a new idea.

It is because you mistakenly confuse the idea with the sign that you try to
justify plagiarism. As for
censorship - if you approach words literally - i.e.
the one to one correspondence between sign and idea again - then
language
implies censorship. But if you grasp the
poetic function of language,
then you understand that ideas are not limited by words, and there is no
inherent censorship. But your anti-poetic mistake is typical of the right-wing
academic mentality - the letter of the law (the letter of the letters) rather
than the spirit (the idea behind them).

Logic is a mental process. The Indo-European sentence implies logic - even
in statements which are not logical. At the same time the Chinese manage
to be logical without a language that implies logic both where it does and does
not exist.

Radical, avant-garde and revolutionary movements do not operate according
to a principle of law. The whole point of revolution is to go beyond the
legalism which you promote. We do not recognize a "norm," because we do not
accept words as Platonic, Kantian, or Jungian archetypes as you do. We follow
idealism and rationalism based upon the philosophical premises I stated above.
I do not see that your verbal fascism has presented any serious philosophical
(i.e. logically consistent) challenge. You have tyrannized yourself in a
prison of words and texts, simply because you misunderstand the purely symbolic
function of words. Language, which ought to be a source of freedom, expression
and communication, becomes for you a source of slavery, conformity, alienation.
And you print your little diatribes in order to enslave the minds of
others - the academic gets his revenge by trying to make others like himself.
And so the disease of fascism is passed on down through the ages, just as Plato
intended.

"Concrete" use of language escapes linearity, but does not escape from the
one-to-one correspondence of word and idea, into the freedom of true poetry and
communication. Mental ideas become split into concrete signs. The person
becomes an object. This is anti-mystical, anti-folk, anti-populist, and
certainly anti-carnival. It is pure fascism. If it leads to mania, it is a
compulsive form of mania, not the spontaneous freedom of carnival, revolution,
anarchy.

And you speak of laughter, but I can find few tract more humorless than
your academic pontifications. Yes, Neoism is, like all right-wing philosophies,
both law and the cause of the war against law that rages in the streets. But
revolution strives to transcend all that misery. The conservative conserves old
concepts, denouncing their limits here and there, but the revolutionary can see
through all that.

Sincerely,

Elliot.

P.S.: And the right no longer had the energy for mania anyway, thank God!
Freely choosing dinosaurhood, they slide slowly into the swamps, in order that
they might provide fossil fuels for future ages...